MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135760352

A State of One's Own? - A Legal Study of the Right to Self-Determination and Secession with Focus on the case of Québec and Canada

2020· article· en· W3135760352 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hilda Hansson

Bibliographic record

VenueLund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecessionPolitical scienceLawSovereigntySupreme courtSelf-determinationFederalismDemocracyInternational lawState (computer science)Human rightsTerritorial integrityPoliticsSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis examines the right of a people to self-determination and the possibility of secession in a democratic context, focusing on the Québec-Canada case. To that end, it studies (1) the historic and contemporary relationship between Québec and Canada, (2) the meaning of the right to self-determination within international law, (3) possibilities for unilateral secession, and (4) secession by virtue of democracy. In this process, the thesis employs an analytical legal method with a human rights-centred approach. The material underpinning the study is primarily international legal sources, used to establish and interpret international law lex lata, but even some views on lex ferenda. The judicial decision Québec Secession Reference from the Supreme Court of Canada furthermore plays an integral part. The source material is viewed through an international and a multicultural perspective. Britain gained control of French Québec in 1759, and the Québécois has since struggled to preserve their culture; distinguished by French language, civil law and Roman Catholicism. When federal Canada was established in 1867, Québec also had to fight against centralisation. The sovereignty movement grew during the 1960s and onwards, resulting in two referendums regarding secession as well as in the Reference before the Supreme Court. The right to self-determination is customary international law and is normally fulfilled through political participation of the citizens in the democratic process. Having met this requirement, a state has earned its right to territorial integrity, and any right to secession is precluded. Self-determination also includes a right for a people to preserve their culture. Yet, international law does not per se guarantee a collective group such influence. Democracy, however, is by Western states given a deeper meaning than majority rule and is also attributed values such as tolerance and respect for all groups within a state. The Supreme Court of Canada held this to include, in certain cases, an obligation to negotiate a potential secession. The Québécois, therefore, have no right to secession, as their claim to self-determination is fulfilled within the Canadian state. Seen in the context of democracy, they could however utilise their self-determination to negotiate a consensual secession. International law and democratic principles can therefore be said to represent mainly liberal- individualist ideals, on the expense of collective interests. Nonetheless, it also allows for mutual consideration, which is necessary for the peaceful coexistence of different groups, be it in a multi-ethnic state or in a state of one’s own.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.173 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University)Same topicTaxation and Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207